The root of it all

The principle of Cuius regio, eius religio provided for internal religious unity within a state: The religion of the prince became the religion of the state and all its inhabitants. Those inhabitants who could not conform to the prince’s religion were allowed to leave, an innovative idea in the 16th century. The phrase cuius regio, eius religio as applied to the outcome is attributed to the early seventeenth century (1612, by the jurist Joachim Stephani (1544-1623) of the University of Greifswald[9]). (via Cuius regio, eius religio: Information from Answers.com).

After war … peace

ll immigrants who do not ‘fit in’ or who don’t ‘integrate’ into the Danish ‘community’, it was decided recently, will get an incentive of 100,000 kroner. By the Danish Government, to go back to their home countries. The ‘fitting in’ and ‘integrating’ refers to Muslims in Denmark.

The Danes are not alone. The French feel let down because “immigrants were supposed to blend harmoniously into society and not exist in separate communities.”

The CRER policy guideline was finally abandoned in post-bellum America and Europe after The Haiti Fright. With Haiti breaking loose, when slaves defeated all the major Euro-colonial powers, in battle after battle, slavery was doomed. More than 200 slave rebellions, revolts and conspiracies made slavery in the West impractical. Cuban slaves were the last to win their freedom – which sounded the slavery’s death knell.

While the West talks about the respect for the individual, reality is different. Reality – Centuries of Conditioning | Cartoon by Kevin Siers, titled inter-marriage; dated November, 2003, from The Charlotte Observer. Click for a larger image.

While the West talks about the respect for the individual, reality is different.

Another study to measure ‘assimilation’ notes “Mexican immigrants are assimilating more slowly than Italian immigrants did at the turn of the last century”. Similarly, expatriate populations in the Middle East have to live with disrespect and intolerance of non-Islamic religions.

The language conundrum

India, has 15 official languages. (Note check comments below on exact number of languages in India).

Shameless vegetables

No other countries even had the courage to think of that. Various US state governments outlawed all languages – except English. It was only in 1923, was this finally set aside after the matter reached the US Supreme Court (read Meyer vs Nebraska). The USA gathered some courage to start timidly with more than English only after seeing India’s success with 15 languages. Switzerland has only four. Sri Lanka’s Sinhalas do not want to accept Sri Lankan Tamils as full and equal citizens – hence the 20 year old civil war.

In the thrall of One

The Western concept of nation building requires the cornerstones of Desert Bloc – One God, One Book, One Holy Day, One Prophet (Messiah), One Race, One People, One Country, One Authority, One Law, One Currency, One Set of Festivals. This tyranny of the ‘One’ is the root of most problems in the world. From this ‘Oneness’, we get the ‘One’ Currency, ‘One’ Language logic – a fallacious syllogism. Once you accept ‘One’, you will accept all others.

EU wants to dictate rules to vegetables and fruits

For more than 20 years, EU had rules in place to allow vegetables of specified shapes and sizes to come onto shop shelves. After more than 20 years, the EU decided that it is easier to change laws than to make tomatoes, cucumbers and bananas follow EU rules.

The Indic model

Unlike the Indian social system, where differences are respected and encouraged, the position of the French Government, paraphrases the thinking of the ‘desert bloc’. Stemming from Vedic tradition, Indians believe that all are वसुधैव कुटुम्बकं vasudevaih kutumbakam’ and ईसा वास्यो मिदं सर्वं ‘isa vaasyo midam sarvam’(meaning all on Earth are one family and God is in everyone and everywhere respectively).

I don’t quite understand your repeated assertions in various posts that Islam is being ‘demonized” by the West.

Their is no difference between the west’s ruthless treatment of diversity (as u have correctly pointed out) & Islam’s equally ruthless treatment of diversity (modern Turkey for instance is a good example). And of course their is the horrendous Indian experince with Islam.

If Hindusim (in India) has not met the same fate as the parsees in Iran, or the Estern orthodox christains in west asia or the original religions of Arabia, or for that matter the original Hindus of Indonesia / Malaysia / Afghanistan etc, its not bcoz of any lack of trying on the Muslim side, but — as u have written extensively — the innate resilience of the Hindu society saved it; i mean its nothing short of a miracle.

Western societies (led by the Church) no doubt have the habit of crying “wolf” whenever they scent diversity, but in case of Islam I thnk the danger is real and not just their normal phobia.

I don’t quite understand your repeated assertions in various posts that Islam is being ‘demonized” by the West.

Raman – Thanks for raising some interesting points! I have sensed the same question among some other readers also.

Their is no difference between the west’s ruthless treatment of diversity (as u have correctly pointed out) & Islam’s equally ruthless treatment of diversity (modern Turkey for instance is a good example).

1. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all a part of the Desert Bloc – and their infighting is the fighting for spoils and loot. One section just does not want to share the loot with the other. That is all. There is no moral, philosophical or ethical difference or disagreement between them. If you imagine that there is a DIFFERENCE, you have become a victim of their propaganda.

Western societies (led by the Church) no doubt have the habit of crying “wolf” whenever they scent diversity, but in case of Islam I thnk the danger is real and not just their normal phobia.

2. The West calls itself as West – but not as Christain West!

Why? Why do they refer to the Middle East /West Asia as Islamic? It is a subtle propaganda war – where they are playing on the fears of people. Islam is as much deliverance or a threat as Christianity is! Roll da dice and make your choice.

3. The Right Wing parties in the West are never called Christian Fundamentalists – but the BJP is called an ‘extremist, Hindu Fundamentalist’ party!

And of course their is the horrendous Indian experince with Islam.

4.Was our experience any better with the Christian West? I am sure that a lot of people (like Mansingh, Akbar’s famous general) thought the Mughals were actually ‘good’ guys.

Islam in India – Now this one place where the West plays on our fears. Factually speaking, Islam was not quite as successful in India as the West would like to make out!

Sample this – When Babur succeeds against Lodis, he is a foreign invader – and India has ‘once more’ fallen to invaders. Before that when the Tughlaks fell to the Lodis, ‘India had once again fallen’. After Bahadur Shah Zafar fell to the British, India was once more defeated. In victory the Tughlaks, Lodis and Mughals were successful invaders – in defeat they were Indian losers!

If Hindusim (in India) has not met the same fate as the parsees in Iran, or the Estern orthodox christains in west asia or the original religions of Arabia, or for that matter the original Hindus of Indonesia / Malaysia / Afghanistan etc, its not bcoz of any lack of trying on the Muslim side, but — as u have written extensively — the innate resilience of the Hindu society saved it; i mean its nothing short of a miracle.

6. Again the Hinduism not meeting the fate of others is sheer military resilience – and not only our spiritual character! In fact one comes from the other!

Couple of comments, one about the three desert bloc religions, and a second about Indians in the US.

Within the three desert bloc religions – there is an interesting sense of asymmetric tolerance.

Judaism’s prophets, Moses and Abraham – are recognized as prophets by the Christians, and the Jewish Tohra is called the old testament of the bible. The christians – in theory are backward compatible with Judaism. However, according to the Christians, Jesus was the last prophet (and more – father, son, holy ghost etc.).

The Muslims, acknowledge Abraham, Moses and Jesus to be the prophets of God as well. However, Muhammed was the “last” prophet and Koran was the “last” word from God. Islam is backward compatible with Judaism and Christianity – except for the part that Christians believe that Jesus was “more” than a prophet – he was God himself.

However, there is no forward compatibility. amongst the three. The Jewish people do not accept Jesus or Muhammed as God’s prophets. The Christians do not believe that Muhammed was God’s prophet. Which, interestingly, makes Islam more “tolerant” of the other two faiths.

Christianiaty and Islam believe that god’s message is served when everyone is converted to their faiths. This insistence and obsession to convert is the root of intolerance.

Idiosyncrasies in beliefs is hardly relevant – when the source of poison is a flawed axiom.

The “enlightened” west – has made “nationalism” as a varied form of “religion”, where “assimilation” is expected, as Anuraag points out in this post.

———-
Historically, around the world, emigrant Indians have maintained a healthy balance of “assimilation” and an Indian “identity.” However, as a large group, Indians are relatively new immigrants to the US. So far, Indians have been left reasonably alone – the question is if the economic situation in the US gets worse – will the Indians be left alone even then?

[…] The principle of Cuius regio, eius religio provided for internal religious unity within a state: The religion of the prince became the religion of the state and all its inhabitants. Those inhabitants who could not conform to the prince's religion were allowed to leave, an innovative idea in the 16th century. The phrase cuius regio, eius religio as applied to the outcome is attributed to the early seventeenth century (1612, by the jurist Joachim S … Read More […]

This funny CRER is being followed in UK even now. The Queen is the head of the Church of England where woman cannot be bishops by tradition. The monarch has to be Anglican and must be supreme governor of the church. UK cannot call itself secular when it’s head of state cannot be from faiths other than Anglican and when only Anglican bishops have reservations in House of Lords and not other faiths. I wonder why the people tolerate monarchy. May be there is an aspiration that the institution would redeem the British society to its past glory.

Get a 2ndlook on

Email Subscription

2ndlook Blogs

Quicktake focusses more on current events, recent events, reports, media buzz, matters of topical interests. Typically, Quicktakes are shorter than 2ndlook. Sometimes a few Quicktakes, morph into a 2ndlook post.